4 ms·

This is an interesting article, but the headline is deceptive. The article doesn't answer that question it poses. The reason the Supreme Court granted cert is b

This is an interesting article, but the headline is deceptive. The article doesn't answer that question it poses. The reason the Supreme Court granted cert is because the court below, which in this case was a special 3 judge district court panel whose opinions skip the Court of Appeals, ruled in favor of the challengers. If the Supreme Court had not granted cert it would have meant that this lower court opinion would have in effect (but not technically) stood as a nationwide precedent modifying existing Supreme Court decisions.

tanderson92 9y ago
Thanks, this is what I was looking for. More coverage at SCOTUS blog: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gill-v-whitford/ http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gill-v-whitford/
lobster_johnson 9y ago
That's the procedural reason -- the case ended up in the SC because the lower court sent it up the chain, but that's still not an explanation for why they chose to accept it. As far as I know, they still had the option to refuse it.
- pyre 9y ago
  > If the Supreme Court had not granted cert it would have meant that this lower court opinion would have in effect (but not technically) stood as a nationwide precedent modifying existing Supreme Court decisions. I think this is the part that matters. It's possible that the Supreme Court would rather that the judgement came from them rather than the lower court. Leaving it as-is would modify existing Supreme Court caselaw, but the decision itself wouldn't have come from the Supreme Court, which could lead to a bit of ambiguity. If the Supreme Court itself weighs in, even just to agree with the lower court, it eliminates that ambiguity. No one is left wondering "What if it had gone to the Supreme Court" about the decision. I am not a lawyer, but that is my interpretation.
  - pmoriarty 9y ago
    "Leaving it as-is would modify existing Supreme Court caselaw, but the decision itself wouldn't have come from the Supreme Court, which could lead to a bit of ambiguity. If the Supreme Court itself weighs in, even just to agree with the lower court, it eliminates that ambiguity. No one is left wondering "What if it had gone to the Supreme Court" about the decision." Doesn't this reasoning apply to every case that comes before the Supreme Court, even those it refuses to hear?
    - heydenberk 9y ago
      Most cases that the Supreme Court refuses to hear are those in which lower courts reaffirmed the status quo.
      - pmoriarty 9y ago
        Why is that? If this lower court could go against the status quo like this, what stops other courts doing the same in other cases?
        thephyber 9y ago
        This[1] may help. The relevant excepts: > The doctrine operates both horizontally and vertically. Horizontal stare decisis refers to a court adhering to its own precedent. A court engages in vertical stare decisis when it applies precedent from a higher court. Consequently, stare decisis discourages litigating established precedents, and thus, reduces spending. and > Although courts seldom overrule precedent, Justice Rehnquist explained that stare decisis is not an “inexorable command.” On occasion, the Court will decide not to apply the doctrine if a prior decision is deemed unworkable. In addition, significant societal changes may also prompt the Court to overrule precedent; however, any decision to overrule precedent is exercised cautiously. It's worth a read (not terribly long) because of the examples and the rationale behind Louisiana having a different system. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis
    - 9y ago
- bradleyjg 9y ago
  They only had the option to summarily affirm or take up the case on appeal. Technically I should not have used the term cert in my original post as it comes up through a different method (28 U.S.C 1253). In the old days there used to be many more mandatory appeals to the Supreme Court, but it has gotten narrower and narrower. The last change in 1988 got rid of most of the remaining paths, but there are still mandatory appeals written into a handful of statutory causes of actions. See: http://electionlawblog.org/?p=91947 http://electionlawblog.org/?p=91947 for more info.

tanderson92 9y ago

Thanks, this is what I was looking for. More coverage at SCOTUS blog: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gill-v-whitford/ http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gill-v-whitford/

lobster_johnson 9y ago

That's the procedural reason -- the case ended up in the SC because the lower court sent it up the chain, but that's still not an explanation for why they chose to accept it. As far as I know, they still had the option to refuse it.

pyre 9y ago
> If the Supreme Court had not granted cert it would have meant that this lower court opinion would have in effect (but not technically) stood as a nationwide precedent modifying existing Supreme Court decisions. I think this is the part that matters. It's possible that the Supreme Court would rather that the judgement came from them rather than the lower court. Leaving it as-is would modify existing Supreme Court caselaw, but the decision itself wouldn't have come from the Supreme Court, which could lead to a bit of ambiguity. If the Supreme Court itself weighs in, even just to agree with the lower court, it eliminates that ambiguity. No one is left wondering "What if it had gone to the Supreme Court" about the decision. I am not a lawyer, but that is my interpretation.
- pmoriarty 9y ago
  "Leaving it as-is would modify existing Supreme Court caselaw, but the decision itself wouldn't have come from the Supreme Court, which could lead to a bit of ambiguity. If the Supreme Court itself weighs in, even just to agree with the lower court, it eliminates that ambiguity. No one is left wondering "What if it had gone to the Supreme Court" about the decision." Doesn't this reasoning apply to every case that comes before the Supreme Court, even those it refuses to hear?
  - heydenberk 9y ago
    Most cases that the Supreme Court refuses to hear are those in which lower courts reaffirmed the status quo.
    - pmoriarty 9y ago
      Why is that? If this lower court could go against the status quo like this, what stops other courts doing the same in other cases?
      - thephyber 9y ago
        This[1] may help. The relevant excepts: > The doctrine operates both horizontally and vertically. Horizontal stare decisis refers to a court adhering to its own precedent. A court engages in vertical stare decisis when it applies precedent from a higher court. Consequently, stare decisis discourages litigating established precedents, and thus, reduces spending. and > Although courts seldom overrule precedent, Justice Rehnquist explained that stare decisis is not an “inexorable command.” On occasion, the Court will decide not to apply the doctrine if a prior decision is deemed unworkable. In addition, significant societal changes may also prompt the Court to overrule precedent; however, any decision to overrule precedent is exercised cautiously. It's worth a read (not terribly long) because of the examples and the rationale behind Louisiana having a different system. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis
  - 9y ago
bradleyjg 9y ago
They only had the option to summarily affirm or take up the case on appeal. Technically I should not have used the term cert in my original post as it comes up through a different method (28 U.S.C 1253). In the old days there used to be many more mandatory appeals to the Supreme Court, but it has gotten narrower and narrower. The last change in 1988 got rid of most of the remaining paths, but there are still mandatory appeals written into a handful of statutory causes of actions. See: http://electionlawblog.org/?p=91947 http://electionlawblog.org/?p=91947 for more info.